DREAMS AND SELF·KNOWLEDGE - ecclesia.gr · Dreams and Sell-Knowledge 321 is my true nature?»...

DREAMS AND SELF·KNOWLEDGE

Dr. ATHANASIOS G. MELISSARIS

DREAMS AND SELF-KNOWLEDGE

Dr. ATHANASIOS G. MELISSARIS

Psycho!ogist (University of Athens ) Doc tor Religion, Culture and Personality (Boston University)

L oving is a way kno wing, and /oving to know, it must peTsoni[y. PeTsoni[ying is thus a way kn owing, especia//y kn owing what is in visib/e, hidden the hean.

James H i//m an'

/ntroductQry Remarks

the most question to ask to att empt ing a study of the phenomenon of would be, is there a point at a11 to dreaming?

otheI" do have something important tell us about

and the most pan hidden, mentaI life, they just funcifuJ of the biological state of sleep? since the of

and Jung the subject we have doubt that [ich insights about and identity. Thus, the is with ways

by which we can the most out of a dream, and will James Hillman 'S2 holistic to as a successful psycho-anaJyt ic tool the unending self-knowledgc.

is that nowadays, of study of can afford to dispense with an account, howe veI" of theil" biological aspects. be whi!e

James H illman, Re- Psychology (New Y ork : Harper & Row, ]975), ]5. 2. the life and \vorks of the A merican Jungian psychologist James see Athana-

sios G. M elissaris, PersonlJood Current Anthropol-ogy and Arclletypal Psychology (K aterini: Epek tasis Publ icat ions, 2002), Ch. 85-88. cf. by the same author, «The Promotion of Otherness the of James Hillman: Revie\v of H is T heological !co noclasm», Palalnas 794 (2002): 506-509.

318 Athanasios G. Melissaris

dreams are indeed instl11ctive about our personal identities, it should be kept mind that they originate the complex biological of a central nerv-

ous system, which has to be accounted for all modem psychological attempts to access the of dreams . Furthermore, all schooIs of contemporary psy-chiatry and psychology have radically diverged from the or Bib-lical, interpretation of dreams , which were seen by that age-]ong, pre-modem tradition as messages from God, bearing pieces of divine Hence, although still ever seen as highly revelatory, dreams are nowadays taken to convey not divine mandates but clues to self-knowledge, though of course (it should be added) the one does not exclude the other. We are told that

The Interpretation of Dreams (1900), Sigmund Freud opened the way to a new approach to understanding dreams. For Freud, dreams functioned primarily to release and express repressed stinctual urges. The motive for dreaming was longer God; rather, instinctually wishes search of fulfillment served as the cataIyst for dream fantasy and imagery. Dreams focused

the preverbal, prelogical, process» language of the dreamer. Dream symbols provided «the royal road to the

As summarized elsewhere,

the nineteenth-century psychology of dreaming represented a transitional period between the tradi-tions of the twentieth century. Dreams of the classical had a supernatura] or transpersonal significance: they were regarded as messages from the gods to men the tradition, from God to men). During the nineteenth century they took an

3. The Bible is rep]ete wIth instances of dreams meant as venlle s of divine revelation; for ex-ample, see Gen 28: 12, Gen 31: 10-13, Gen 37:5-11, Gen 40: 5-15 , Gen 41 : 1-7, NlIm 12:6, Job 20: 8, Ps 73: 2, Ps 126: Eccl. 5 :3, 1s29: 7, 1s.29: 7, Jer 23: 28, Dan 2: Dan 4:19, Joel 2:28, Matt 2:13, Matt 27: 19, Acts : 2:17. For a thorollgh analysis of Joseph's dreams in Genesis, see 1oan-nis Komarakis, Bib/ika Psychographemata (Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis PlIblications, 1986), 105-

12 (in Greek). 4. Weathers «Dream Tlleory and Research», in Dictionary ofPa.stora/ CareandCoun-

se/ing, edited by Rodney J. Hunter, (Nashville : Abingdon Press, 1990),310.

319 Dreams and Self-Knowledge

terpersonal significance: they were regarded as messages from one person to another, as mere epiphenomena of physiologi-cal states. the twentieth their significance is intraper-sona] : they constitute a message from the person to the self5 .

Sigmund Freud's Account of Dreams

Sigmund Freud's (1856-1939) theory, as expounded his 1900classic The Interpretation of Dreams, is perhaps the best-known modern explanation of dreams and dreaming. According to Freud, dreams are expressions of all the unconscious drives, fears, instincts and desires which are censored by the ego, but which also manage to resurface slips of the tongue and dreams. Freud soon discovered the importance of dreams to consist in giving cJues about re-pressed feelings, which caused psychological disorders.

the first place, Freudsought recourse to hypnosis to recall repressedfeel-ings and forgotten parts of dreams. However, as he met increasing

appJying this technique patients, many of whom couJd not even be hyp-notized, he found another alternative technique, which he named «free associ-ation of ideas». But the diffrence techniques notwithstanding, Freud's pur-pose was the same, nameJ y, to bring the surface the one, true account

terpretation of dreams as a clue to the patient 's innermost personality. Part of Freud's discovery was that these clues the unconscious were giv-

en symbols, other words, that the language of dreams is always sumbolic and needs to be carefully deciphered. his mode of deciphering dream guage was formalistic andset, reflecting Freud's positivist proclivities, i.e., his fj rm hope to render psychology a predictabJe the man-ner of the natural sciences. It is this aspect of Freudiananalysis that James man challenges the most.

The Jungian Perspective

Way before HilJman, however, Freud's most famous pupil, Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961 ), had critiqLIed his teacher preciseJy grounds of naturalis-

5. Hendrika Vande Kem p, «Therapeutic Use of Dreams», in BllkeT Encyc/opedjll of Psy-ch%gy, edited by David G. Benn er Rap ids, Michigan: Bake r Boo k House, 1985),329.


tic rigidity. Jung's divergence from his Iegendary teacher's doctrines extended well beyond his account of ili-eams, of course. For example, not only did he red-ifine the Freudian concept of the Jjbjdo as to make it inclusive of all the ener-getic processes of life beyond mere sexual energy; he fact gave the concept of the unconsciousa universal collective, as he named it eventually, char-acter, as an enormous and inherited reservoir of mostly mythical 8.Tchetypes that lurk the back of minds side by side with the personal unconscious.

Jung's category of the archetypes is actually very helpful toward an under-standing of dreams, for it shows why some ili-eams may be explained by refer-ence to a universal meaning applying to everyone, while others are simply pri-vate, conceming the personallife and circumstances of individuals only. top of that distinction, cruciaI for a more accurate account of ili-eams the con-text of psychotherapy, Jung to free dream language, which is always sym-bolic and thus demanding its interpretation, from the naturalistic and tivist excesses of Freud's earlier «alphabet» . And certainly, unlike Freud's overtly materialistic orientation, Jung made free, if carefully selected, use of myths, mysticism, metaphysics, and religious experience his approach toward an understanding of dreams, sharing as he did his teacher's tenet the latter gave us unique access the world of the unconscious, but broadening it to include the collective one, as well.

James Hillman's «Apophatic» Approach to Dreams

Jungian differentiation aside, recent advances psychoIogy to the need for a departure from the rigidity of Freud's positivism as applied to dream interpretation as well, a departure just as radical as that made by early mod-ern psychologists from the pre-modern, Biblical tradition, as described above.

this end, let us consider the fresh ideas of James Hillman 's dynamic and pluralistic understanding of and how they can educate us about ourselves and human nature general.

Self-consciousness has been the single most crucial concem of the study of human personality from time immemorial. The Delphic exhortation «known thyself»6, as well as the Socratic Dialogues bear eloquent testimony to this con-sideration. Humanity is rurhlessly faced with the question, «Who am What

6. Xenophon , MemorabiJia, ed. C. Marchant , 2 (Oxford : C1arendon 1971), 4:21. cf. I3asil the Gre at's simil ar exhortation 3, PG 31, 197-198. For more self-

321 Dre ams and Sell-Knowledge

is my true nature?» Oedipus Rex may serve as a reminder of the pain and suf-fering that is often involved the quest for self-awareness.

Time and again, philosophical speculation and, more recentJy, psycholog-ical research, attempted to shed Iight the nature of the human soul, at least (more modestJy so) simpJy assist us own search for true self. If anything, being as much self-conscious as possibJe enables one to engage

healthier inter-personal relations, as we]] as better adjust to one's family and work settings. However, as indicates,

Psycho]ogy never transcends its subjective premises inj the psy-che. as Jungsaid his Terry Lectures, the psycheis both the object of psychology and also its subject. Psychology gains its definition less through the development of an objective fie]d than through the defining limits of the subjective person whose developments it depends7.

Hence the person who attempts (struggles might be a more appropriate term, sometimes) a seIf-examination is both researcher and the researched «item», which means that he she may not be rid of his her own inherent presuppositions. The problem is further complicated when the unconscious realm is taken into consjderation, an area that is notorious]y resistent to probes, for we always remain, after a]], «the unknown» accordingto Carrel.

strongly believe that se]f-consciousness is only partia]]y possibJe, a]ways subject to conditions and limitatjons. beliefis rooted the concept of per-sonhood as put forward by John ofPergamon who, basedas he is an original interpretatjon of Cappadocjantheo]ogy, sees each human beingas a unique, unrepeatable andutterly inexhaustjbJe entity, that can-not, under any circumstances, be objectified reduced to any single inter-pretatjon (Psychoana]ytjc, Marxist, etc.). What js above a]] emphasized here is mystery, which refers to the failure of language to fu]]y encapsuJate the

knowledge the context a Christian anthropo logy, see Tom as Spidlik, 5J, The Spirituality of the Christian East trans. Anthony Gythiel (Kalamazoo, Michigan: Cistercian Publications Inc, 1986), esp. 87-94.

7. Hillman , Re-Vision ing Psych% gy , 33. 8. For a biograph ical note, see Athanasios G. Melissaris, «The Challenge PatrIstIc

ogy the Theology Metropolitan JOlln (Zizioulas»>, The Greek Orthodox The-%gica/ Review 44 (1999): 467-490, especia lly 467-469. For an overvi ew lor his theologi cal con-tributi on see Melissari s, PeI'Sonhood Re-examined, Ch. 53-83.


human person, which is indefinable par excellence, and resistant conclusive definitions. This is not suggest a «supematural» element human beings, but simply to stress that what is truly a mystery is not something exotic oth-erwordly, but the contrary a concrete and yet elusive entity, an indefinable one, like the human person.

This is the reason that personalIy disagree with Freud's wish to objectify the inner world, and to discover a single formuJa (after a typical positivist fash-

that would explain all human behavior. think there is a discrepancy be-tween that, and his discovery of the unconscious, which see as prohibiting the objectification of our inner life. And that is the reason was excited to read

HilIman's Anima that

... consciousness refers to a process more to do with images than will, with reflection rather than control, with reflective insight

rather than manipulation of, «objective reality»9.

If understand Hillman correctly, this is departure from classical Freudi-anism into Jungian territory, which seems to me less rigid. And it accords with my little experience the Sacrament of Confession, which, if genuine and au-thentic, does not apply general rules and regulations to everyone, but addresses each person individually, according to their distinct needs. But Hillman does-n't escape Freudian rigidity for a wholehearted espousal of Jungian analysis of dreams, either. Instead, he keeps his critical distance from all watertight schools of psychoanalysis, anxious as he is to preserve the inner integrity of dreams from ideological artificial interpretative lenses: «Dreams», says Hillman , «have been yoked to the systems which interpret them; they belong to schools - there are 'Freudian dreams', 'Jungian dreams', etc.»IO.

Despite his criticism of Freud's ideas grounds of positivist rigidity, Hill-man does, fact, follow Freud's lead viewing dreams as «the royal way to the unconscious». Thus, he also focuses an extensive study of dreams,

which, however, Hillman engages with entirely different presuppositions from the Freudian ones. He begins with the premiss that dreams have a content rich

imagery and symbolism to furnish us with, including profound insights about our innermost aspects, which may manifest themselves «epiphanies», to

9. James Hillman, Anima: An Anatomy ofa (Woodstock,

Spring Publications, 1985),93. 10. Hillman, Re-Visioning Psych%gy, 8.


borrow a literary term from James Joyce. «The dream is the teacher», writes Hillman, pointing 10 the revelatory character of dreams ".

Hillman quickly hastens 10 depart from classical Psychoanalysis, by main-taining that dreams have 10 be lived rather than merely analyzed what would often be a standard, dry interpretation. What he is really against is doing dreams the violence of objectifying them and dissecting them quantitative, meas-urable units, for the sake of a supposed «accuracy» their interpretation.

«If you can Iiteralize a meaning, inte1preta drearn , you are offthe track, your koan. (For the dream is the thing, what

means). Then you must be slapped 10 bring you back 10 the im-age»1 2.

grasp Hillman 's proximity 10 Jungian psychoanalysis (as opposed 10 Freudian), we need only consider Jung's following approach 10 dreams: take the dream for what is. The dream is such a difficult and complicated thing that

do dare 10 make any assumptions about its possible cunning its ten-dency deceive»1 3.

None of the above is 10 suggest a blind obedience Hi1lman's behalf 10 Jung's ideas. For one thing, shouId be that Hi11man is a very dependent thinker and far removed from standard schools of psychotherapy.

proximity 10 Jung's qualified psychoanalysis (purged from Freudian biol-ogism) sti1l never bound him analytical psychology as Jung delivered it.

an interview 10 Laura where HiIlman was asked 10 clarify his relation-ship and debts 10 Jungian theory, he stated the following:

don't emphasize , even use, some of Jung's terms like: self, compensation , opposites, types, psychic energy. ou won't find anything about manda]as and wholeness, and don't refer much 10 Eastern thought, synchronicity, and the Judeo-Christian God-image .. . When use the term «ego», ironic marks around

the so-called ego , because for me the task of psychology it 10

11. James Hillman , lnquir y Image», Spring (1977): 87. ]2 . Thomas Moore, (Ed.), Blue Selected by James Hillman (New York:

Harper Perennial, 1989),245 . 13. Jung, quot ed Andrew Samuels, Jung and the Post-Jungians (Bo ston: Routl edge &

Kegan Paul , 1985),230.


see through it and get around

Still, the main bulk of HiIJman's criticism is directed against Freud's work , so much Jung's, and more specificaIJy against Freud's deliberation to trans-

late dreams into the ego's Ianguage. HiIJman leans closer to Jung, who as we saw, took dreams for what they were , daring to «make any assumptions about [their] possible cunning or [their] tendency to deceive»lS.

fact, dreams seem furnish, their puzzling obscurity, the perfect portunity for an epistemological humility. For if truth is arrived at dialectical-ly, and if is a!ways multi-dimensional, then we must always remain humbly aware of our ignor ance, and open to the many, aImost infinite, layers of exis-tence that together make up reality. Above all, we should refrain from trying to encapsulate reality, for that would certainly be a folJy. 1nstead, reality should be Iived, become incarnate the uniqueness of each and every human being , hence aIJowed to be «the ax for the frozen sea within us,» as Kafka said.

Friendship wants to keep the connection open and flowing. The first thing then , this non-interpretive appproach to the dream is that we give time and patience to jumping to no conlusions, fiJdng it in no solutions. Befriending the dream begins with a plain attempt listen to the dream ... 16. We can have ana!ysis without interpretation. 1ntrerpretation tums the dream into its meaning17•

Andrei Tarkovski writes in Time that the dreams we remem-ber best are the clearest ones, the most vivid, the blucred images usuaIJy depicted movies distinguish reality from phantasy. From my own expe-rience, recaIJ that the dreams that have made a lasting impression upon me are those that initiaIJy produced intense feelings, and those that aIJowed my-seIf to re-experience, instead of looking at them from a cerebral viewpoint.

contrast, those that tried to dissect have a!ways been elusive. This is because

14. James Hillman, «Psychoanalysis and Schoo]s», Inter Views: Conversations betw een James HiJJman and Laura (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), 30.

15. Jung, quoted Samuel s, Jung and the Post-Jungians, 230. 16. James HiJIman, !nsearch: Psych%gy and Religion (Woodstock, Connecticut: Spring Pub-

lications, 1995),59-60. 17. James Hillman, The Dream and the Underwor/d(New York: Harper& Row, 1979), 130.


«The dream is 'mine' but the psyche's»18. fact, Hillman identifies three to approaching a dream its own

terms, as he would like to do: connecting all psychic events to material events, placing the

images of the soul the of physical tangibles. «Every translation of a dream into bread-and-butter issues of 'real' f!esh and blood is a 19 He likenssuchconcerns to the archetype of the great mother, Hera, and «Hera's concerns with social realities, the problems of husbands and wives and fami-lies the daily world»20. The dream becomes a resource for solving problems so that life may These are attempts to return dreams to nature through naturalistic interpretations; nature though is a fantasy of the soul.

Such issimilar to Freud's approach. It reducesthe dream to sen-sations of pleasure and pain. There is less underworId, Iessdepth, and one be-comes more spread out (women's energy goes often into hori-zontaI connections; men's may go into the individuaI hero joumeys). Depres-sion is the soul's response to its underworld.

Oppositionalism: HiIlman describes this 10gic of oppositionalism as the bedrock of our culture:Jung's are [ull of suchpairs: ego/seJf; first half!second half; individual/collective; anima/animus.

The dream is approached by means of opposites; for example, with the the-ory that the dream compensates for something by always presenting its posite . When a dream is understood as compensation, it is aIways seen as par-tiaI, one-sided,unbaIanced. understand it you need the other haIfof the pair: the day time world. dream is not complete , and of itself. therapy, Jun-gians try to the blanks. Inevitably they consteIIatethe hero with their ideas of wholeness and growth.

mission to the underworId was to annul it through his victory over death. Becauseof hismission, aIl Christians were forever exempted from the descent... 21 . The underworId became thoroughly moralized; death became equat-ed with sin22 .

18. Moore, Blue Fire, 242. 19. Hil1man, The Dream and the Underworld, 69. 20. Ibid., 71. 21. Ibid., 85. 22. Ibid., 87 .


HilJman suggeststhe Hebrew world had sheol, and dreams were heard. With- the as-if world of fantasy and imagination , thought becomes action.

man suggests that the second commandment shaII have other gods be-fore me) forbids imagination 23 . there confusion between image and fact? The adulterous image the heart equals adultery .

11. Dreams as Venues to a Dynamic, Open-el1ded Al1thropoIogy the Work James Some paralleIs with Orthodox

thropoIogy

How does Hillman, then envisage the psyche? His dynamic portayal of the human soul psyche is not terms of a static monad, but of communion of many person s, each with specific needs, fears , Iongings, styles, and

guage»24. This description resonates with the dynamic understanding of the Christian God as given, among other pieces of Eastem Orthodox Literature ,

Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Way, where we read the following:

the last chapter, we found that the most helpful ways of entry into the divine mystery are to affirm that God is personal and that God is lo ve. Now, both these not ions imply sharing and reci-procity . First, a «person» is not at all the same as an «individual». 1solated, self-dependent, none of us is an authentic person but mereIy an individual, a bare unit as recorded the census. Ego-centricity is the death of true personhood. Each becomes a real person through entering into telation with other persons , through living for them and them. There can be man, so it has been rightly said, there are at Ieast two men commu-nication. The same is true, secondly, of love. Love cannot exist

isolation , but presupposes the other .. . Personhood and l0ve signifylife, movement, discovery. So that the doctrine ofthe Trin-ity means that we should think of God terms that are dynam-ic, rather than static2S .

23. Ibid., 115. 24. Moore, Blue Fire, 37. 25. Bishop Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox (Crestwood: Vladimir 's 5eminary

Press, 1996), 28-29.

327 Dreams and SeIf-Knowledge

deep!y believe that any anthropo!ogy or psycho!ogica! perspective which pays service to the multiplicity and diversity of human personhood, paint-ing us colors of stillnessand repose is just not doing justice to what it means to be human. «Junguseda polycentric description for the objective psyche»26, Hillman maintains, perhaps implying an early breach from Freud's flat idea of the psyche. Freud did, fact, acknowledge the operation of three distinct a-gents within us, but saw the negative tension them, the struggIe they are engaged how each tries to cancel the other out. And certainly, his un-fulfilled wish to establish one single unifying formula explaining all human be-havior, objectifying it to the utmost, fails, as far as can tell, to perform a deep analysis of the psyche a contextuaJ sense.

Hillman, for one, fulfills the requirement. «The persons of dream represent the many personalities who have a role the psyche's everyday dramas... From the start, the motive polytheism is to honor aJJ sides»27. What found particu]arly interesting is the point he is raising that the multip!icity our souls does not the least suggest a disorder (ie., schizophrenia), but it is ac-tually the suppression of multiplicity that «returns the form of disintegra-tiOn»28.

Far from suggesting that Hillman's inspiring work may serve as a backer of the Trinitarian doctrine, can express here my enthusiasm that the work of such profound thinkers as our author is harmony with the anthro-pology of age-old tradition, which is itself an extension of the same tradi-tion 's theology. can see richness, diversity, multiplicity andspace for growth

both. The latter is very important, for that is alive, it has been rightly said, which grows and relates.

Pastoral Applications of Drcams

Hillman's owninsights dreams29, like those of the long psychoanalytic

26. James Hillman, «Psychology: Monotheistic Polytheistic»? Spring (1971) : 194. 27. Moore, (Ed.) , B/ue Fire, 37-38. 28 . Ibid., 37. 29 . Hillman describes three dominant views dreams that informed Freud's first writings

dreams: 1. perspective: «the dream cont ained a hidden but important person al message

from another world» (Hillman, and the Underwor/d, 8), (the Iatent content);


tradition instituted by Freud, are not simply interesting from a psychological their own right, as curious mental phenomena, but concem us mainly

for their application pastoral care. If dreams are indeed, as psy-chologists !ong ago with Freud, «the royal path to the uncon-scious,» then they should be seen as That dreams to us what we are ignorant of about personalities, thus shedding ample light

what would otherwise be but uncharted psychological territory. As a result, a dream interpretation is not if it articulates and

comments something we already consciously know. This is to say that the contents of dreams should be taken at but rather as symbol-

pointers deeper layers of reality the dreamer's inner and outer life, as clues to important truths that the dreamer is either ignorant of (for the most part, at least) the process of persistently denying those truths an audience. If the aim of pastoral care is precisely to people assistance a healthier and more balanced life, then the goal cannot be enacted without an adequate measure of self-knowledge, which is precisely, as we just saw, what dreams are all about. Hence pastoral councellors cannot afford dispense with dream interpretation dealing with a patient's psychological problems,

that self-knowledge is by all accounts a sine qua for a successful psy-chotherapy.

my Hillman's non-onto!ogistic approach to dreams is a major step forward dream interpretation and its application to psychotherapy, certainly ahead of Freud's static and model. If anything, his fundamental pre-miss that we should to the actual experience of dreams instead of subjecting them to standard formulas of interpretation, resonates with the latest depth psychotherapy3I, which clear]y indicate that «dream

2. The rationaJist «Freud accepted the idea that the maniFest dream, dream lan-guage as appeared, was a jumble oFnonsense - For Freud, was decipher-able a latent and meaning. » (Hillman, The Dream and the Underworld, Ibid) . Like the

he saw the dream as a) a temporary psychosis; b) using the residues oF day as the building blocks oFthe dream. The dream is a rearrangement oF the residues accordance with instinctual needs oFsleep and sexuality. The dream is a compromise between demands of night world and day world .

3. The somatIcIst Freud «agreed that the dream reflected psysiological process-es - mainly do with sexuality and sleep. » (Hillman, The Dream and the Underworld, Ibid).

30. For more this subject, see Charles G. Helms, «Oream Interpretation Pastora! Coun -seling», Dictionary ofPascoral Care and CounseJing,308-310.

3 Regarding the recent therapeutic use oFdreams, J. Hersch and Taub-Bynum

329 Dreams and Sel f-Knowledge

interpretation that is therapeutically spiritually is merely an

tellectual exercise but an experiential process»32.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Freud, Sigmund, 1913, The Interpretation Dreams. New York : Macmillan . (Origi-nally published, 1900)

Hall, J. 1977, C/inical Uses Dreams. New York : Grune & Stratton . Helms, CharJes G., 1990, «Drea m Interpretation Pastoral CounseJing.» Dictio-

nary Care and Counseling, edited by Rodney Hunt er , 308-310.

Abingdo n Pre ss. Hersch, J. and Ta ub-Byn um, 1982, Use dreams Paper pre-

sente d at the annual meet ing of the Ame rican Psychological Association Washing-to n, D.C ., August.

Hillman , Jam es, 1971, «Psyc hology : Monotheistic Spring 193-208, 230-232.

- 1975, Re-Visioning Psychology. New York: Harper & Row. - 1977 , Inquiry into Image». Spring 62-88. - 1979, The and the Underwo l1d. New Y ork: Harper & Row. 1983, In tel' Views: Conversations between James Hillman and Laura New

ork: Harper & Row ." 1985, Anima: Anatomy a Personj[jed Woodsto ck, Co nnecticut: Spring

Publi cat ions. 1995, Insearch: Psychology and Religion. Woodstock, Connecticut: Spring Publ ica-

tion s,),59-6O. Jon es, R. 1970, The New psychology of Dreaming. New York: Grune & Str atton .

suggestedeight uses of dreams short-term therapy. A ccording to them, drearns aid setti ng a focus for treatment and planning i ts course; 2) aid assessing the quali ty o f object relatio ns

in terpersonal relatio nships; 3) aid facil ita ting the expression of repressed affec t; 4) aid

assessing the of transference; 5) provide a here-and-how focus emphasizing the affective component; 6) assist the patient the search for meaning; 7) may actually serve as a form of resistance when dream reporting is substitLIted for the confrontation of primary affect ; 8) may be used to translate insight behavioraJ strategies. J. Hersch and T aub-B ynum, Use

dreams brie[ therapy. Paper presented the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association Washington, D.C., A ugLIst, 1982.

32. Helms, «Dream Interpretat ion Pastoral Counseling», Dictionary PastoraJ Care and Counseling, 309.


Jung, Carl Gustav, ]974, Dreams. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press . Kemp, Hendrika Vande 1985 «Therapeutic Use of Dreams». Baker Encyclopedia Psych%gy, edited by

David G. Benner, 329-332. Grand Rapids, Michigan: J3aker J300k House. Kornarakis, Ioannis ]986, Psychographemata. Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis

Publications. Melissaris, Athanasios G., ]999, «The Cha1lenge of Patristic Ontology the Theolo-

gy of Metropolitan of Pergamon John The Greek Orthodox Theo-logical Review 44: 467-490.

2002a, Personhood Re-examined: Perspectives [rom Orthodox Anthropolo-gy and Archetypal Psychology. Katerini: Epektasis Publications.

2002b, «The Promotion of Otherness the Work of James Hillman: Review of His Theologica1 lconoclasm,» Pa/amas794: 506-509.

Moore, Thomas (Ed.), ]989, Blue Fire: Selected Writings by James Hillman. New York: Harper Perennial.

5amuels, Andrew, ]985, Jung and the Post-Jungians. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 5pidlik, Tomas 5J, ]986, The Spiritua/ity the East. Translated by. Antho-

ny Gythiel. Ka1amazoo, Michigan: Cistercian Publications Inc . Ware, Bishop Kallistos, ]996, The Orthodox Way . Crestwood: Vladimir's

5eminary Press. Weathers, Robert, 1990, «Dream Theory and Research». Dictionary Pastora/

Care and Counseling, edited by Rodney J. Hunter, 310-3]]. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Xenophon, ]971, ectited by C. Marchant, 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

DREAMS AND SELF·KNOWLEDGE - ecclesia.gr · Dreams and Sell-Knowledge 321 is my true nature?»...

Documents

Transcript of DREAMS AND SELF·KNOWLEDGE - ecclesia.gr · Dreams and Sell-Knowledge 321 is my true nature?»...